considering making the switch to FF.

[scaryloud]

I currently own the D7100. It is an impressive camera to say the least, but for all its attributes, it isn't full frame. With the advent of the D610, several sites have price dropped the D600. This is what I'm considering, any opinions are welcome.

Selling my D7100 along with my Nikon 17-55mm and Sigma 10-20mm. With that money, I'd get the Nikon D600 along with the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC. I can't afford the Nikon 24-70mm.

I already own the Nikon 60mm g micro lens, Nikon 70-300mm Vr lens and 50mm d 1.8 lens.

 

[mikeyidaho]

Just curious, is the d7100 holding you back in some way? Is it missing features you want other than not having a full frame sensor?

Sent from my Verizon Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2

 

[scaryloud]

The main thing would be low light photos. Color depth is slightly higher with the D600. The autofocus system in the D7100 surpasses the D600. The D600 only goes to 1/4000 sec, but I rarely shot anything at that speed. I do however shoot long exposures quite often, this is where my desire for inherentky lower noise comes into play.

 

[480sparky]

I've never been sorry for going from the D7000 to the D600

Sent via SkidPaper 3.1 via MyOuthouse.

 

[scaryloud]

What also concerns me a bit is the seemingly inevitability to full frame. I see plenty of consumer grade lenses coming to aps-c, but not much if anything on the prosumer side unless Sigma is considered.

For instance, the d400 is less likely to be produced. Canon has already stated there will be no update to the 7D.

I own the Nikkor 17-55mm, which is an amazing lens, but dated. There have been rumors to an updated 24-70mm. There have been no such rumors about the 17-55mm being updated.

I'm concerned if I don't switch to FF soon, my gear may be worth significantly less in the future should I decide to.

 

[raventepes]

I'll be honest. I've been contemplating this myself. All things considered, I think DX is living on borrowed time, like an old timer in a hospital waiting to die. Mirrorless is the new small frame format, and soon, even full frame will be dated since we're starting to see full frame sensors in mirrorless designs. I didn't go digital until the D200. Up until then, I was all film. I'm not going to make the same mistake twice. I should have made the switch sooner, and likewise, I'm debating on weather or not to go full frame or Micro 4/3. So far, while the OM-D EM-5 didn't do much for me, the EM-1 is looking REALLY attractive. But so is the Nikon D610 or D800E.

 

[scaryloud]

The announcement of the D610 is what got my wheels rolling. That and Canon announcing it will not be upgrading the 7D. Nikon appears to be following suit with the D300s. The differences in the D600 and D610 are minimal at best. If anything it should be a D600s. The redesigned shutter allows for a slight bump in fps from 5.5 to 6. The oil issue has been taken care of also. This is of little importance to me as I already have a pro sensor cleaning kit.

As for mirrorless, there are serious flaws to the technology which don't seem to have a workable fix to it... low light performance. Because of the type of technology, low light performance will always suffer substantially. The Sony A-99 has a comparable low light performance of just over ISO800 as my D7100 does at ISO1250. Full Frame should not perform less than an APS-C sensor in low light. I do agree that small mirrorless compacts will overtake APS-C dslr's to an extent. Full frame is a different story. The best lenses, camera bodies and equipment is built for full frame and as long as pro's use them, this will never change. The only horizon shift I see is in medium format, but that appears to be a solid 10+ years before the prosumer will be able to find one affordable enough and user friendly enough to buy.

I've already seen the D600 go for $1350 refurbed with a warranty. This is what's also spurring my choice to change to full frame. The future appears clear that APS-C is going to the beginners and regular consumers, but I do take advantage of the crop factor in wild life shooting quite often. I would also have to dump my Nikkor 17-55mm which I use religiously. I've read good reviews of the Tamron 24-70mm VC, but in real world use, how will it perform?

 

[krystalynnephoto]

I went from the D7000 to the D600; I say DO IT!!

 

[raventepes]

Why would you have to dump your 17-55? If it's purely to fund a full frame body, that's one thing, but you can still use it in crop mode on a full frame.

 

[scaryloud]

It's not that I'd have to dump it. The money from the D7100, battery grip and Sigma 10-20mm would fund it, but how well would the 17-55mm work on the D600? Wouldn't the autofocus points be affected in DX crop mode? I do love the 17-55mm. If I could keep it and have the camera function fully with it, then I would keep it.

 

[scaryloud]

But at the same time if I kept the 17-55mm and used the camera in crop mode, wouldn't that effectively be the same as having an aps-c camera? Almost defeats the purpose I would think.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

The main thing would be low light photos. Color depth is slightly higher with the D600. The autofocus system in the D7100 surpasses the D600. The D600 only goes to 1/4000 sec, but I rarely shot anything at that speed. I do however shoot long exposures quite often, this is where my desire for inherentky lower noise comes into play.

Your long exposure performance will be the same on both cameras. It's shooting at high ISO is where the full frame will shine. There is a difference. If I would shoot a long exposure of a building on a tripod at night with my D7000 and D600 the photos would be equally great at base ISO. It's when you walk around at night and need to keep your shutter fast enough to freeze those night shots and have to jack the ISO on both cameras to 6400 is where the d600 will produce much cleaner images. But for that reason alone it was worth the upgrade for me. With respect to better colour and all that other stuff, unless you're a pro you won't notice a difference.

 

[coastalconn]

For instance, the d400 is less likely to be produced. Canon has already stated there will be no update to the 7D.

Just curious where did you see this?

 

[Coasty]

I can remember the same arguments way back in high school photography. “110, oh what a joke, your joking right? Real photography is 35mm.” “Oh, I see you just have a 35mm, well I have a 2 ¼ square TLR it has better resolution than your smaller tiny film.” “Oh, 2 ¼ square isn’t anything compared to my 4x5, it will eat yours for lunch.”

On a side note, todays APS-C cameras will produce print sizes that would have looked terrible had it been attempted with a “full frame” 35mm film negative back in the day. Today’s FX “full frame” is just another tool for photographers to use, if you need it, you use it. But great digital pictures were created before the D3 and are still being created with APS-C cameras.

I guess cameras are like chain saws, not everyone needs the biggest professional Sthil or Husky saw, but it sure looks good in the back of your truck.

 

[goodguy]

In the last few weeks I have transformed my view of this FX vs DX.
All the time I was just looking for a reason to get an FX, all my lenses are ready as they are all FX and I just waited for the money to arrived, the problems I had with my old D7K caused me to get a new camera at time that I didn't plan and due to lack of funds I got the D7100.
I knew the D7100 is a good camera and I figured it will be "good enough" for the next 2 years till a REAL replacement to the D600 will arrive and then I will toss the D7100 like yesterday garbage and get it.
Well things has changed since then, the D7100 helped me to see the light, all the flaws of the D7000 are gone, it is such an amazing tool that I no longer am looking to replace it.
I think unless you are a pro or really using the camera a lot in low light then keep it.

Dont get me wrong my next camera will be FX, I also share the thought DSLR days are numbered but I also honestly believe that except in low light situation there isn't much of a different between D610 and the D7100 for the non pro user.
Today after few month of owning the D7100 I actually have the funds to upgrade to the D610 if I really, really wanted and I have no doubt that overall the D610 is the better camera but honestly the D7100 is so good that I simply will waste my money on getting something else.
In 2 years I will get an FX but not today and if I were you I would keep the D7100.

Just my 2c